Jury selection begins in Illinois Vioxx trial

Painkiller linked to woman's death?

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

EDWARDSVILLE (AP) - More than three years since 52-year-old Patricia Schwaller died of a heart attack, the Illinoisan's widower and a pharmaceutical giant are poised to square off in court over whether the former blockbuster painkiller Vioxx was linked to the mother of two's demise.

In the first Midwest trial over the arthritis medication, jury selection is to begin here today in a trial about whether Merck and Co. negligently failed to adequately warn of Vioxx's potential risks before pulling the drug off the market in 2004. The company withdrew the drug after research showed it increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

Attorneys suing Merck for at least $50,000 in damages on each of the lawsuit's eight counts say Schwaller had been taking Vioxx for more than 20 months before the Granite City woman died suddenly Aug. 8, 2003, after returning home with groceries. John Driscoll, the family's attorney, said Schwaller had no previous heart attacks, strokes or symptoms of congestive heart disease.

But Merck expects to prove what it has argued in previous trials involving Vioxx - that heart problems by certain plaintiffs, including Schwaller, were caused by pre-existing health issues, not Vioxx. The company also contends it properly warned doctors of possible complications from using the painkiller.

Jim Fitzpatrick, an attorney for Merck, said in a statement that the company acted responsibly every step of the way, from researching Vioxx to monitoring it on the market and voluntarily withdrawing the drug.

"We believe we have a strong case, and we look forward to presenting that evidence to the jury," he said, noting that "each case has individual facts and each plaintiff has their own unique medical history."

Based in Whitehouse Station, N.J., Merck has been deluged with more than 27,000 personal injury lawsuits and another 265 potential class-action lawsuits alleging harm from Vioxx, amounting to billions of dollars in litigation. Merck, which has reserved $1.64 billion in its Vioxx legal defense fund, has won most of the roughly dozen trials involving Vioxx so far.

Both sides and observers expect the Schwaller case to be closely watched to see for the first time how the legal wrangling over Vioxx plays out in America's heartland - and notably in Madison County, which in recent years has tried to shed its reputation as a plaintiffs' paradise in big-money lawsuits.

This southwest Illinois county just east of St. Louis has become known as a place where lawyers from across the country file cases hoping for big payouts involving everything from asbestos exposure to medical malpractice. Some plaintiffs have been awarded tens of millions of dollars.

In March 2003, a Madison County judge issued a $10.1 billion verdict favoring smokers who sued Philip Morris USA in a class-action lawsuit involving "light" cigarettes. The Illinois Supreme Court later threw out that ruling, and the nation's high court last November let that decision stand.

Detractors, including the American Tort Reform Association, have pointed to this county as a "judicial hellhole." President Bush visited here in January 2005 as a backdrop for pressuring Congress to pass legislation limiting jury awards for medical malpractice. And in August 2005, Gov. Rod Blagojevich came to Madison County to sign a law seeking to hold down steep medical malpractice costs for doctors by limiting the amount of money people can collect in lawsuits against hospitals and physicians.

With the Schwaller case, "the eyes of not just Illinois but the eyes of the country are on Madison County," said Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, a lawsuit reform group. "I think this will be a test for the court to make sure it's a fair trial and that both sides are given ample opportunity to state their case."

Would-be jurors were to spend much of Tuesday filling out questionnaires, with jury selection then to be recessed until next Monday because the judge will be on vacation. The trial should take at least three weeks, both sides say.